REACTIONS

Dr. R. H. Brown deserves the full appreciation of all recent
creationists for his tireless efforts to integrate C-14 observations with a Biblical Flood
framework. His article represents a major, quantitative step forward in his endeavor. The
article presents an empirically derived relationship for converting C-14 age to
"real" age. I doubt that anyone could produce a better relationship for this
much-needed conversion than that which Dr. Brown has presented, if one begins with the
assumption that an Ussher-like date for the Flood is correct, as Dr. Brown has done.
However, the application of this conversion relationship produces some
strange results which seem to argue strongly against its general validity, and prompt
reconsideration of the assumptions upon which it is built. For example, consider the case
of certain trees. Individual tree specimens of bristlecone pine containing several hundred
or even several thousand consecutive growth rings are known to exist. C. W. Ferguson (see
Fig. 1, p. 239 of Nobel Symposium 12, Ingrid U. Olsson, ed.) used one such tree exhibiting
580 consecutive growth rings in the construction of his bristlecone pine chronology. The
C-14 age of the first growth ring of this tree is roughly 7500 5700 B.P.
while that of its final growth ring is roughly 6150 B.P. When I rescale these C-14 ages
according to Dr. Brown's relationship I find that the "real" age of the first
growth ring is about T = 4340 years and for the final growth ring it is about
T = 4420. If these dates are correct, then this tree produced 580 growth rings
in 80 years. That is, it averaged more than 7 growth rings per year!
This example could be augmented with that of many more trees of similar
radiocarbon age from various locations on the globe. For those trees with the greatest
C-14 ages, Dr. Brown's conversion relationship implies a growth rate of up to 20 rings per
year. But these are trees which normally produce only one ring per year today. This, of
course, does not mean that they could not have produced 20 growth rings per year in the
past, but it is not at all obvious how any environmental conditions, no matter how
different from those normal at the present time, might bring about such a feat.
As one further example, consider the following archaeological data from
Jericho (see, for example, John R. Bartlett, "Cities of the Biblical World:
Jericho," Eerdmans, 1982). At one location in the ancient mound 26 building stages
were excavated all belonging to the PPNB period. This data implies that a succession of 26
consecutive house building programs was undertaken at this site during the PPNB. Houses of
this period were ruggedly constructed of mortared brick, with carefully plastered
rectangular rooms. Conventional radiocarbon dates imply that the PPNB lasted a little more
than one millennium, roughly coinciding with the seventh millennium B.C., which suggests
that houses had to be rebuilt at Jericho about once every forty years  a conclusion
which seems entirely reasonable. Now let us suppose that these radiocarbon dates are wrong
and need to be rescaled as Dr. Brown's conversion relationship suggests. We will have to
compress these 1000 radiocarbon years of the PPNB period into about 70 "real"
years. But this immediately leads to the unreasonable conclusion that these brick houses
had to be completely rebuilt during the PPNB at Jericho once every 2.7 years! Even modern
houses last longer than this!
As I stated at the outset, I do not think anyone could do any better
with the radiocarbon data than Dr. Brown has done, if their thinking is constrained by an
Ussher-like date for the Flood. The problem is that presently available radiocarbon,
tree-ring, and archaeological data appear totally irreconcilable with the Flood date in
either the third or fourth millennia B.C. It seems the Flood must have occurred well
before these dates.

Gerald E. Aardsma
Coordinator of Research
Institute for Creation Research
Santee, California

Brown's reply:

Before publication it was recognized that "Correlation of C-14
Age with the Biblical Tune Scale" would produce extensive negative reaction from a
wide range of viewpoints. The treatment in that paper was offered as the best that can be
done with the limited knowledge available. I must thank Dr. Aardsma for the opportunity to
elaborate my initial presentation.
Given the capability of trees for producing more than one growth ring
within a calendar year under appropriate circumstances (Glock and Agerter 1963, Gladwin
1976), our uncertainty concerning the climate patterns at bristlecone pine growth sites
over the first three millennia after the Genesis flood as a consequence of all the climate
changes associated with glaciation and deglaciation and the continental plate movement
that must have occurred during that time, I see 1000 ring sequence wood samples as a
challenge to dendrochronology, but not as definitive evidence against a time frame based
on the data in the eleventh chapter of Genesis.
I do not have sufficient knowledge of Jericho archaeological evidence
to discuss whether the available data must be interpreted as requiring rebuilding every
2.7 or every 40 years. The interpretive model for C-14 age that was presented in the last
issue of Origins brings the age of an Alaskan musk ox down from 7000 years to a
reasonable 50 years, and the dung accumulation from a viable population group of ground
sloths in the Grand Canyon from an average of about one dung deposit every three years up
to at least one dung deposit every four days (Brown 1986). Given a choice between this
interpretive model and one chosen to avoid an archaeological interpretation which
indicates home rebuilding every 2.7 years, I will choose the former and hold the
archaeological interpretation in question.
Where our knowledge limits or our biases prevent a satisfactory
resolution of such difficulties, I am confident that sufficient information will
eventually become available for validating to everyone's satisfaction the testimony which
has been collected in the Bible.
I hope that a competent archaeologist will discuss in Origins
the issue that Dr. Aardsma has raised concerning the remains of ancient Jericho. From my
personal inquiries to individuals who have done site work in this area and are well
informed concerning archaeological study in the Middle East, I have been informed that the
Jordan Valley experienced an all-time high rainfall during the Neolithic; that during this
time Jericho houses were of mud-brick construction, rarely, if ever, plastered on the
outside; that these houses needed frequent major repair, possibly on an average of every
two years at some locations; that the floor level of many of the houses needed constant
(every few years) raising to prevent rainwater from running in off the street, since
erosion of the mud-brick houses produced a continual rise of the reed-paved streets, and
consequently of the city mound (tell). This information gives me increased appreciation of
the need for a paradigm that brings the real-time equivalent of C-14 ages prior to 3500 BP
into harmony with the chronological data in the Bible.